In a brief press conference Wednesday morning, San Bruno Police Chief Ed Barberini told reporters that the YouTube shooter had legally purchased her handgun and that she had trained on a local range prior to the incident.

Late Tuesday evening, the San Bruno Police Department, which serves YouTube’s hometown, identified the suspect in Tuesday’s shooting at the YouTube campus as Nasim Aghdam, a 39-year-old woman from San Diego. She ended the shooting when she took her own life.

While Barberini declined to name the gun range, there is one just three miles away from YouTube’s headquarters in the nearby city of South San Francisco.

The chief also noted that the victims, who are being treated for their wounds, were not specifically targeted. He also said that Aghdam was able to access YouTube’s courtyard via a parking garage—and she did not enter any buildings.

Barberini provided a few more details about the incident, confirming that she was upset with the company’s “policies and practices.”

Earlier videos—which have been removed from YouTube and Facebook but remain scattered in other places across the Internet—include clips of Aghdam railing against perceived grievances concerning age restrictions and demonetization.

Last year, Google overhauled its age restriction rules and enforcement policy. This resulted in a wave of videos being demonetized, which angered YouTubers who could no longer attach money-making ads to their videos.

Prolific video maker

Ruchika Budhraja, a Facebook spokeswoman, confirmed to Ars that the company had deleted Aghdam’s Facebook and Instagram accounts and wrote that the company would also “delete content that praises or supports the shooter or the horrific act as soon as we are aware.”

Budhraja also sent a corporate statement that reads, in part: “This is a terrible tragedy, and our thoughts are with all those affected. There is absolutely no place on our platforms for people who commit such horrific acts.”

Further Reading

On her website, “Nasime Sabz” (“Green Nasim”), which remains online, Aghdam describes herself as a “vegan activist.” (“Sabz” is the Farsi word for the color green and, in this context, likely refers to her support for “green” issues such as veganism.)

Aghdam was also previously photographed and interviewed by the San Diego Union-Tribune during a 2009 protest by the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which took place outside Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

Her Telegram channel, which still features numerous Farsi-language videos of her, primarily discussing her health beliefs, jumped from around 1,300 subscribers late Tuesday to more than 5,000 by Wednesday morning. The encrypted messaging app is very popular in Iran and among Iranians abroad.

Searches underway

Police in the city of Mountain View, approximately 27 miles south of San Bruno, said in a statement released Wednesday morning that, at about 1:40am on April 3, officers ran the license plate of a vehicle parked just a few miles from Google headquarters. The plate search showed the car belonging to a woman who had been reported to the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office on March 31 as missing.

“We called the Sheriff’s Office to confirm the missing persons reports, and personnel there told us that, in that report, the woman had been reported missing and ‘at risk’ because she had never gone missing or left home before,” the Mountain View Police Department wrote. “We contacted the woman inside the vehicle, who was asleep, to check on her and to determine if she was the same person who had been reported missing.”

MVPD officers spoke to Aghdam, who identified herself and said that she had left home days earlier “due to family issues.” She added that she was looking for a job.

“At no point during our roughly 20-minute interaction with her did she mention anything about YouTube, if she was upset with them, or that she had planned to harm herself or others,” the MVPD wrote. “Throughout our entire interaction with her, she was calm and cooperative.”

The MVPD also said that its officers later called her family to let them know that she was OK.

“Roughly one hour after our phone call to Aghdam’s family, her father called us back to let us know that she made a series of vegan videos for her channel on YouTube and that the company had recently done something to her videos that had caused her to become upset,” the statement said.

“Aghdam’s father stated that she may have been in the area because of this. He did not seem concerned that she was in the area and wanted to simply let us know that [there] may have been a reason for her move up here. Once again, at no point did her father or brother mention anything about potential acts of violence or a possibility of Aghdam lashing out as a result of her issues with her videos. They remained calm throughout this second phone call.”

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms have been interviewing Aghdam’s family in Southern California’s Riverside County. Investigators are also now executing search warrants at two properties.

Meanwhile, Brent Andrew, a spokesman for Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, told Ars via text message that two of the victims were discharged Tuesday night, while one remains in “serious condition.”

As of Wednesday morning, YouTube employees have reportedly returned to work.

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

First, they took away the Confederate statues and I said nothing because I was not a statue.Then they took away the gun videos, and I said nothing because I was not a video.Then they demonetized fringe weirdos, and I said, "it's about fucking time."

It would be nice if every shooting in the US received this kind of attention. Maybe then there'd be a realisation amongst the uninformed about the need for changes to gun laws.

I'd wager that people in favor of more regulation know less about the relevant legislation than people against, given my personal experience. I'm intimately familiar with the NICS form, NFA, FFL transfers, and state-specific restrictions. Are you?

It would be nice if every shooting in the US received this kind of attention. Maybe then there'd be a realisation amongst the uninformed about the need for changes to gun laws.

This is a pretty hard one for gun regulation. From the sounds of it she wasn't acting unsettled, she legally purchased her firearm, planned the event and went down as what I imagine she saw it as a martyr. I can see no way this even could have been stopped short of outlawing all guns, but it sounds like she had the means, and desire to do something regardless.

Ruchika Budhraja, a Facebook spokeswoman, confirmed to Ars that the company had deleted Aghdam’s Facebook and Instagram accounts and wrote that the company would also “delete content that praises or supports the shooter or the horrific act as soon as we are aware.”

That is creepy as fuck, maybe scarier than the shooting. And lots of people will be cheering the corporate censorship.

I do not like this world we're making on the Internet, where companies are getting to decide what opinions you're allowed to express.

Ruchika Budhraja, a Facebook spokeswoman, confirmed to Ars that the company had deleted Aghdam’s Facebook and Instagram accounts and wrote that the company would also “delete content that praises or supports the shooter or the horrific act as soon as we are aware.”

That is creepy as fuck, maybe scarier than the shooting. And lots of people will be cheering the corporate censorship.

I do not like this world we're making on the Internet, where companies are getting to decide what opinions you're allowed to express.

That has literally always been the case. They make their own platform, they make the rules.

If there was a GovernmentTube run by the feds, then you'd have a case about censorship.

It would be nice if every shooting in the US received this kind of attention. Maybe then there'd be a realisation amongst the uninformed about the need for changes to gun laws.

No, because there is solid evidence that the media popularization of mass shooters tends to encourage more mass shootings.

Many European countries ban the mention of the names of people who inflict mass casualty events or commit suicide.

A lot of it is our society encouraging this behavior (even if we talk about it negatively). A lot of mass shooters and bombers want to be popular and known, even if it isn't known for good reasons. So the more we talk about them, the more we encourage the next one.

Yes, our gun laws do make it easy to get guns, but the root of the problem is our society, not access to firearms.

Ruchika Budhraja, a Facebook spokeswoman, confirmed to Ars that the company had deleted Aghdam’s Facebook and Instagram accounts and wrote that the company would also “delete content that praises or supports the shooter or the horrific act as soon as we are aware.”

That is creepy as fuck, maybe scarier than the shooting. And lots of people will be cheering the corporate censorship.

I do not like this world we're making on the Internet, where companies are getting to decide what opinions you're allowed to express.

As I recall, Youtube is a private sector company, not a government entity so they can decide to show whatever content they choose. The fact that they have been, up to date, loose with what they allow, I'm glad they are stepping in and attempting to put some level of filters on their content.

If there was a GovernmentTube run by the feds, then you'd have a case about censorship.

Yeah, and just how many people are effectively silenced by a Facebook topic ban? I don't even use the damn site, but I'm aware how central it is for most people. If they can't talk about something on Facebook, it's extremely difficult for them to talk about it online at all. Not many people even have their own websites anymore, even though they're no harder to create than they ever were.

And I see people cheering this idea because it's shutting out opinions they don't like, not really getting that the exact same arbitrary "you can't say that here" is eventually going to be applied to ideas they DO support.

Rights are always taken away from the loathsome first. When you protect them, you're protecting yourself. As more and more people are shut out of the conversation, you'll eventually become the loathsome one.

That is creepy as fuck, maybe scarier than the shooting. And lots of people will be cheering the corporate censorship.

I do not like this world we're making on the Internet, where companies are getting to decide what opinions you're allowed to express.

Plot-line for an unwritten Philip K Dick novel; powerful and omniscient AI algorithm scours the web and deletes social media contrary to the maintaining balance and tranquility among the population. Extra twist; repeat offenders are sent for reprocessing in the nutrient vats.

It would be nice if every shooting in the US received this kind of attention. Maybe then there'd be a realisation amongst the uninformed about the need for changes to gun laws.

This is a pretty hard one for gun regulation. From the sounds of it she wasn't acting unsettled, she legally purchased her firearm, planned the event and went down as what I imagine she saw it as a martyr. I can see no way this even could have been stopped short of outlawing all guns, but it sounds like she had the means, and desire to do something regardless.

Her own father warned the cops about her and they didn't act, she wasn't acting normally.

This is certainly making my post at the start of this thread easy to argue. From the Ars article:

Quote:

“Aghdam’s father stated that she may have been in the area because of this. He did not seem concerned that she was in the area and wanted to simply let us know that [there] may have been a reason for her move up here. Once again, at no point did her father or brother mention anything about potential acts of violence or a possibility of Aghdam lashing out as a result of her issues with her videos. They remained calm throughout this second phone call.”

It would be nice if every shooting in the US received this kind of attention. Maybe then there'd be a realisation amongst the uninformed about the need for changes to gun laws.

I'd wager that people in favor of more regulation know less about the relevant legislation than people against, given my personal experience. I'm intimately familiar with the NICS form, NFA, FFL transfers, and state-specific restrictions. Are you?

All of that is irrelevant when I can sell anyone any of my guns without being required to comply with any of those regulations (except NFA, which I complied with by not being able to buy non complying firearms to begin with). Private sales are a loophole large enough to drive a state of Texas through. I can even sell to people who live in cities where firearms are banned because I don’t.

I think the insta-deletion on social media is a little worrying, if understandable from a legal standpoint. I don't think there are very many people supporting her actions, although reflection and analysis are certainly needed. Does this evaporation of history worry journalists at all?

Who knows if she was DSM-5 material... but it seems possible that there was a mixture of frustrated idealism, cultural displacement and financial stress going on. The article seems to indicate some measure of family conflict, too.

I think her story would make great topical screenplay material, if anyone had the gonads... (the Frida Kahlo looks wouldn't harm its chances)

Ruchika Budhraja, a Facebook spokeswoman, confirmed to Ars that the company had deleted Aghdam’s Facebook and Instagram accounts and wrote that the company would also “delete content that praises or supports the shooter or the horrific act as soon as we are aware.”

That is creepy as fuck, maybe scarier than the shooting. And lots of people will be cheering the corporate censorship.

I do not like this world we're making on the Internet, where companies are getting to decide what opinions you're allowed to express.

I don't support or condone this shooter or any others, but there is something creepy and disconcerting about all traces of someone "being removed" from the internet. It reminds me of 1984, specifically when people fell out of favor and were deleted from history and all publications.

I understand that we don't want to glamorize shooters and leave up propaganda to inspire copycats, but it just feels so weird that all traces of her social media are being purged. I don't think it matters that this is done by the government or private companies, the end result feels the same.

It would be nice if every shooting in the US received this kind of attention. Maybe then there'd be a realisation amongst the uninformed about the need for changes to gun laws.

No, because there is solid evidence that the media popularization of mass shooters tends to encourage more mass shootings.

Many European countries ban the mention of the names of people who inflict mass casualty events or commit suicide.

A lot of it is our society encouraging this behavior (even if we talk about it negatively). A lot of mass shooters and bombers want to be popular and known, even if it isn't known for good reasons. So the more we talk about them, the more we encourage the next one.

Yes, our gun laws do make it easy to get guns, but the root of the problem is our society, not access to firearms.

Unfortunately banning names is prior restraint in the United States. The American experiment is one that prioritizes freedom over safety and this frankly the cost of doing business.

Ruchika Budhraja, a Facebook spokeswoman, confirmed to Ars that the company had deleted Aghdam’s Facebook and Instagram accounts and wrote that the company would also “delete content that praises or supports the shooter or the horrific act as soon as we are aware.”

That is creepy as fuck, maybe scarier than the shooting. And lots of people will be cheering the corporate censorship.

I do not like this world we're making on the Internet, where companies are getting to decide what opinions you're allowed to express.

I don't support or condone this shooter or any others, but there is something creepy and disconcerting about all traces of someone "being removed" from the internet. It reminds me of 1984, specifically when people fell out of favor and were deleted from history and all publications.

I understand that we don't want to glamorize shooters and leave up propaganda to inspire copycats, but it just feels so weird that all traces of her social media are being purged. I don't think it matters that this is done by the government or private companies, the end result feels the same.

Let's calm down there, skip. The accounts were removed from Facebook-owned services. Facebook is not the internet.

Ruchika Budhraja, a Facebook spokeswoman, confirmed to Ars that the company had deleted Aghdam’s Facebook and Instagram accounts and wrote that the company would also “delete content that praises or supports the shooter or the horrific act as soon as we are aware.”

Then why can I still find Alex Jones content on Facebook, and other garbage that calls out mass shootings as being hoaxes?

I think the insta-deletion on social media is a little worrying, if understandable from a legal standpoint. I don't think there are very many people supporting her actions, although reflection and analysis are certainly needed. Does this evaporation of history worry journalists at all?

Who knows if she was DSM-5 material... but it seems possible that there was a mixture of frustrated idealism, cultural displacement and financial stress going on. The article seems to indicate some measure of family conflict, too.

I think her story would make great topical screenplay material, if anyone had the gonads... (the Frida Kahlo looks wouldn't harm its chances)

Purely as a hunch of course, I will bet there will be many people who got demonetized for disturbing videos who will sympathize with her. Not exactly the most stable demographic.

Ruchika Budhraja, a Facebook spokeswoman, confirmed to Ars that the company had deleted Aghdam’s Facebook and Instagram accounts and wrote that the company would also “delete content that praises or supports the shooter or the horrific act as soon as we are aware.”

That is creepy as fuck, maybe scarier than the shooting. And lots of people will be cheering the corporate censorship.

I do not like this world we're making on the Internet, where companies are getting to decide what opinions you're allowed to express.

Watching the masses demand the almighty government for even more regulation, as if it were more important than breathing air, without even measuring for the consequences that will fall upon them too.

It would be nice if every shooting in the US received this kind of attention. Maybe then there'd be a realisation amongst the uninformed about the need for changes to gun laws.

I'd wager that people in favor of more regulation know less about the relevant legislation than people against, given my personal experience. I'm intimately familiar with the NICS form, NFA, FFL transfers, and state-specific restrictions. Are you?

All of that is irrelevant when I can sell anyone any of my guns without being required to comply with any of those regulations (except NFA, which I complied with by not being able to buy non complying firearms to begin with). Private sales are a loophole large enough to drive a state of Texas through. I can even sell to people who live in cities where firearms are banned because I don’t.

The gun show "loophole" is implicated in what percentage of shootings, exactly? Y'all keep harping on all sorts of things except the one that actually ends up providing the vast majority of criminal weapons: criminal dealers. Lest we forget, the Feds were complicit in mass export of weapons to Mexican cartels via what was effectively straw purchase, which is a felony unless you're powerful enough.

I'm supposed to believe that more regulations as enforced by those dog-shooting jokers will fix the problem? Puh-lease. Cali has regulations as tight as much of Europe and yet...same problem.

Fix our horrendously ineffective social safety nets and healthcare and then the problem will fix itself. Otherwise we have about 15 years till we look like the former Soviet states or Mexico that have effectively total bans on guns but crime with them remains rampant.

Ruchika Budhraja, a Facebook spokeswoman, confirmed to Ars that the company had deleted Aghdam’s Facebook and Instagram accounts and wrote that the company would also “delete content that praises or supports the shooter or the horrific act as soon as we are aware.”

Then why can I still find Alex Jones content on Facebook, and other garbage that calls out mass shootings as being hoaxes?

Why does Twitter provide Trump with a powerful propaganda tool? The universe wonders.

This is such a wild and tragic story. I think it's safe to say we have both a gun problem and a mental health problem. Both of these things need to be dealt with. Very very sad.

Don't believe any politician that claims any shooting is a "mental health issue" unless they immediately follow it up with a bill increasing the funding for mental health treatment, and additional counselors in schools. If they wanted to, they could push through a bill that does that by the end of the damn week, Trump could sign it by Monday, and we'd be seeing more people get treatment within a month. But they won't, because they know that "mental health" is a red herring.

Ruchika Budhraja, a Facebook spokeswoman, confirmed to Ars that the company had deleted Aghdam’s Facebook and Instagram accounts and wrote that the company would also “delete content that praises or supports the shooter or the horrific act as soon as we are aware.”

That is creepy as fuck, maybe scarier than the shooting. And lots of people will be cheering the corporate censorship.

I do not like this world we're making on the Internet, where companies are getting to decide what opinions you're allowed to express.

That has literally always been the case. They make their own platform, they make the rules.

If there was a GovernmentTube run by the feds, then you'd have a case about censorship.

Really? Did they use to disconnect the phones of households of people that shot someone 50 years ago? Because this is what it is. This "it's not censorship" is getting rather tedious. It's not de jure but it's de facto. It is high time to introduce legislation and regulate de facto monopolies of information exchange.

I mean these companies INFLUENCE ELECTIONS. How much more "leave them alone, they have right to do what they want" do we really need?